Topic: [BUR] Spousal relationships to Lore tags

See SNPtheCat's revised BUR #10123 and BUR #10124

Direct link to comment

Reason: Like the sibling/parental relationship tags (father_and_daughter_(lore)), spousal relationships usually need some kind of external source of confirmation, say when two people's sonas are married but it doesn't state so in the work being viewed.
As such, I think they should be re-categorized into lore tags. This BUR goes through the process of reworking these.

Bulletpoints

• Creates lore tags for every (two-character) combination of husband, wife, and spouse.
• futa_and_wife will alias to spouse_and_wife_(lore) for the sake of gender-neutrality, like with the intersex tag. I don't know if there's a good word for intersex spouse.
• Creates the proper implications, as well as aliases for currently existing tags.
• Using 'spouses' instead of 'spouse_and_spouse', akin to siblings_(lore)

Transitives

The above BUR will additionally fix the BTRs affecting the below script:

alias husband_and_wife -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias husband/wife -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias wife_and_husband -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias wife/husband -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias married_couple -> spouses_(lore)

The bulk update request #10121 has been rejected.

create alias husband_and_husband_and_wife (4) -> polyamory_(lore) (0)
create alias husband_and_wife_and_wife (25) -> polyamory_(lore) (0)

Reason: This BUR deals with currently existing polyamorous marriage tags, such as husband_and_wife_and_wife. While I think it's important to represent polyamory, I think the tags add a bit of clutter, and can be confusing at times.
Using husband_and_wife_and_wife as an example, this could mean that all three characters are married to each other, or that two of the characters are married to the same one, but not the other of the two.

The [spouse]_and_[spouse] tags can handle the relationships between two characters, while a polyamory tag handles the nature of the relationship.
Currently this BUR creates a lore tag separate from the polyamory or polyamorous tag. They currently show a lot of non-canon polyamorous relationships, as well as having some mix-in with polyamory_pride_colors. I do think one separate tag for the non-canon relationships should remain.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10121 (forum #435934) has been rejected by @DirtyDerg.

dirtyderg said:

Bulletpoints

• futa_and_wife will alias to spouse_and_wife_(lore) for the sake of gender-neutrality, like with the intersex tag. I don't know if there's a good word for intersex spouse.

You might want to check the line again
create implication futa_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> spouse_and_wife_(lore) (0)
Also the male-leaning intersex (maleherm and andromorph) would be the husband, similar to the precedent set by the family tags (see father_(lore))

Also one thing:
If we're creating this lore system I want it to be better than the family tree, at least in culling redundant tags.

For one we shouldn't be tagging spouse_(lore), husband_(lore), and wife_(lore). They should be aliased to spouses_(lore) and spouse_and_{relation} instead.

Anyways speaking of family, opinions on implying mother and father (lore) to husband and wife_(lore)?

snpthecat said:
You might want to check the line again
create implication futa_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> spouse_and_wife_(lore) (0)
Also the male-leaning intersex (maleherm and andromorph) would be the husband, similar to the precedent set by the family tags (see father_(lore))

I've fixed that line. The only reason I included the futa one was because it's an existing tag. I think most people use husband and wife respectively, but this was an outlier that seems to be on one set of images.
Edit: just realized I accidentally added a lore suffix to the futa tag. Changed so it aliases away the existing tag. Can also change to wife_and_wife if need be

Also one thing:
If we're creating this lore system I want it to be better than the family tree, at least in culling redundant tags.

For one we shouldn't be tagging spouse_(lore), husband_(lore), and wife_(lore). They should be aliased to spouses_(lore) and spouse_and_{relation} instead.

I mostly based this BUR off what I know of the existing familial relationship tags. brother and sister (lore), brother (lore), siblings (lore) and stuff like that. Down to simplify if need be

Anyways speaking of family, opinions on implying mother and father (lore) to husband and wife_(lore)?

I'm opposed. Just because they have a kid together doesn't mean they're married. i.e. inbreeding

Sorry for any errors in my response. On mobile, about to head into work.

dirtyderg said:

I'm opposed. Just because they have a kid together doesn't mean they're married. i.e. inbreeding

Fair enough.
Also you might want to move the tags to lore when creating them

The bulk update request #10123 is pending approval.

Here is the BUR Visualiser for this BUR, and this BUR combined with the BUR below (Thanks Tarrgon!)

Reason: My suggestion for the BUR. Getting rid of the redundant husband_(lore) wife_(lore) and spouse_(lore) because you aren't to tag them on their own.
Changed the order of the spouse_and_* tags to include the more informative section first (for autocomplete and human readability)

Also included changing them to lore

alias husband_and_wife -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias husband/wife -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias wife_and_husband -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias wife/husband -> husband_and_wife_(lore)
alias married_couple -> spouses_(lore)

Followup unchanged.

dirtyderg said:
I'm opposed. Just because they have a kid together doesn't mean they're married. i.e. inbreeding

They could also be divorced.

The bulk update request #10124 is pending approval.

create alias wives (15) -> wife_and_wife_(lore) (0)
create alias wives_(lore) (0) -> wife_and_wife_(lore) (0)
create alias husbands (0) -> husband_and_husband_(lore) (0)
create alias husbands_(lore) (0) -> husband_and_husband_(lore) (0)
create alias wife_and_spouse (0) -> wife_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create alias husband_and_spouse (0) -> husband_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create alias spouse_and_spouse (0) -> spouses_(lore) (0)
create alias spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> spouses_(lore) (0)

Reason: Extra aliases, if you want em
While wives and husbands could refer to polyamory (or multiple couples in the same picture), it doesn't seem to be used for that that often

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #10124 is pending approval.

create alias wives (15) -> wife_and_wife_(lore) (0)
create alias wives_(lore) (0) -> wife_and_wife_(lore) (0)
create alias husbands (0) -> husband_and_husband_(lore) (0)
create alias husbands_(lore) (0) -> husband_and_husband_(lore) (0)
create alias wife_and_spouse (0) -> wife_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create alias husband_and_spouse (0) -> husband_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create alias spouse_and_spouse (0) -> spouses_(lore) (0)
create alias spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> spouses_(lore) (0)

Reason: Extra aliases, if you want em
While wives and husbands could refer to polyamory (or multiple couples in the same picture), it doesn't seem to be used for that that often

I think "wives" and "husbands" is better than "wife_and_wife" and "husband_and_husband". The latter sounds much more awkward and less natural, and is more to type.

beholding said:
I think "wives" and "husbands" is better than "wife_and_wife" and "husband_and_husband". The latter sounds much more awkward and less natural, and is more to type.

Eh, it seems people went for husband and husband more than husbands

What about married_couple? Do we want to keep that one as general?

beholding said:
What about married_couple? Do we want to keep that one as general?

That could be the ultimate implication for all of the combinations of spouses: married_couple_(lore)

beholding said:
What about married_couple? Do we want to keep that one as general?

if you look up at the first post again you'll notice that the married couple alias is listed, and cannot be done until the first alias is done.
the alias being married_couple -> spouses_(lore)

manitka said:
if you look up at the first post again you'll notice that the married couple alias is listed, and cannot be done until the first alias is done.
the alias being married_couple -> spouses_(lore)

Whoops, I missed that. Sorry.

beholding said:
Whoops, I missed that. Sorry.

No worries we all miss things (I’m very guilty of this cause I’m dumb as a box of rocks)

...what about when it's not lore, and is literally depicted in the image?

Example:

post #5242671

kyiiel said:
...what about when it's not lore, and is literally depicted in the image?

Example:

post #5242671

wedding.

kyiiel said:
...what about when it's not lore, and is literally depicted in the image?

Example:

post #5242671

Still a lore tag so that we don’t have multiple copies of the same tag

Kinda like the family tags, sometimes you can absolutely tell when an image is of family members, but it’s still the lore tag

very relevant bumping>>

beholding said:
What about married_couple? Do we want to keep that one as general?

I think it should be married_(lore) that way you circumvent things like trouples and other polyamory tag proliferation

Maybe having a tag like visibly_married_couple would be good for finding the actually visible examples of marriage - not just weddings, but (more commonly) characters wearing wedding rings.

spe said:
Maybe having a tag like visibly_married_couple would be good for finding the actually visible examples of marriage - not just weddings, but (more commonly) characters wearing wedding rings.

+1. We have visibly_trans, so there's precedent.

+1. We wanna see twys couples too

Bumping because I made this forum topic and someone pointed towards this thread. I'm fully on board with making these lore tags, though I take issue with this:

snpthecat said:
Eh, it seems people went for husband and husband more than husbands

I think people only did that to pattern the tags (husband and husband and wife and wife) after husband and wife, because that was the one immediate comparison point? husbands_(lore) and wives_(lore) seems less clunky (and I agree with DirtyDerg that cases of polyamory can just be tagged as such).

If "husbands" and "wives" were to be aliased to "husband_and_husband" and "wife_and_wife," respectively, then I think I would be opposed to that. Everything else about these aliases is perfectly fine to me.

spe said:
Maybe having a tag like visibly_married_couple would be good for finding the actually visible examples of marriage - not just weddings, but (more commonly) characters wearing wedding rings.

+1 to this as well.

The bulk update request #10120 (forum #435933) has been rejected by @DirtyDerg.

The bulk update request #10121 (forum #435934) has been rejected by @DirtyDerg.

auto_moderator said:
The bulk update request #10120 (forum #435933) has been rejected by @DirtyDerg.

auto_moderator said:
The bulk update request #10121 (forum #435934) has been rejected by @DirtyDerg.

Rejecting in favor of SNPtheCat's alternative